This isn't really the spirit of Open Source though. The point of Open Source is that reuse and modification isn't just technically allowed legally, it's encouraged.
I fully support their right to change their licensing, and I understand they may not have thought through the implications of their license -- and I empathize with that. I also empathize with criticism that Amazon isn't doing a great job of supporting the ecosystem that supports them, it would be nice if they did more. And it goes without saying, but I also strongly empathize with the frustration about the borderline trademark infringement that's happening here. That's a completely separate problem.
But I don't like the implication that Open Source licenses are a legal technicality rather than a specific philosophical choice to allow reuse. People don't need to feel guilty about following Open Source licenses, the idea is to encourage reuse -- even by corporations.
We do harm to that movement when we try and backtrack from that philosophy or say, "sure, you have the legal right to reuse the code, but we're going to try and implement social/technical barriers to you doing so." There are plenty of decent source-available licenses projects can use if that's their intent. They carve out exceptions for small-scale reuse while trying to limit companies like Amazon from capitalizing on the ecosystem. And maybe more projects should use those licenses since they more accurately reflect the outcomes that the authors seem to want. There's nothing wrong with having projects that allow only small-scale reuse.
But if someone releases their project as Open Source I'm going to treat it like Open Source, because that's what the movement is about, and trying to reverse the legal progress we've made by constructing new moral barriers in front of reuse is harmful to that movement. When we say that people have a moral right to reuse, adapt, and share our code, we mean it.
Open source may be a moral system, but Karl Popper had a thing or two to say about actors who take advantage of the morality of a system for immoral ends. At some point, whether you or I appreciate it, the open source world was bound to have to reinvent a solution to that.
There is a solution to that already, it's called using source available licensing instead of Open Source.
But the point of Open Source is that reciprocity of code/money/value is not required. That's literally the scenario that many of us are trying to build.
It feels like the difference here is that you're looking at "someone builds a giant public hosting service off of our code" as an immoral end. But I'm saying that's not immoral, that is an acceptable result.
It's obviously not the result Elastic wanted, and I empathize with that, but... I don't know, maybe we need to educate people more about what Open Source actually means. Maybe we need to encourage more people to use source available licenses if there's a disconnect in how people understand the actual goals of the movement.
We believe that people have an intrinsic, moral right to share and reuse code. Not just good citizens who help build up the system and support us -- everybody.
I will define freeloading by those with the capacity to do otherwise as immoral any day of the week (and AWS functionally does a lot of that), yes, and I will define it in those moral terms regardless of the legal letter of a license. There is an implicit social contract that open source software absolutely and without question relies upon--and yes, large actors owe more in response than small ones in that calculus. When the social contract is abrogated by an actor who is beyond the capacity for shame or for criticism to change their ways--that's absolutely a problem. This shift of what open source means away from "Amazon, please co-opt and strangle at your leisure" is inevitable, and I don't really think it's wrong.
(I also don't like Elastic as a company, to be clear, and wouldn't shed many tears if they disappeared tomorrow, there's just a hierarchy of dirtbags and they're not near the top.)
As far as encouraging those source-available licenses--that sounds great, except that, in my experience, people with the temerity to offer source-available licenses get treated like shit anyway because they aren't giving away the farm. So I don't know where we go there, either.
Reusing code is not freeloading in the Open Source (capitalized) movement -- at least, not the kind of freeloading that we'd like to discourage.
I don't know what else I can do as an Open Source developer in my projects and my terminology to imply that when I say, "you can reuse my code for any reason" I actually mean it. I guess traditional Open Source advocates could abandon the entire term and go off and create a brand new movement where we try to make that even more explicit, but people are just going to follow us there and then try to coopt the term again.
> people with the temerity to offer source-available licenses get treated like shit anyway because they aren't giving away the farm
I will call out people who are doing that.
But really, the only comments I have about source available products are:
A) they don't offer all of the advantages of Open Source (although they offer many more benefits than fully closed-source software), and I think that pointing that out is not a moral judgement, just a statement of fact about what the licenses do and do not allow.
B) people who offer source available licenses need to stop saying that they're basically the same as Open Source, or that they're just a subset of Open Source, or that they exist because Open Source has lost its way.
Because the licenses are not the same. All other debates aside, both us at this point in the conversation recognize this, right? You and I are disagreeing about a fundamental philosophy on what rights and moral responsibilities people have around code. You fundamentally disagree with me about whether or not large companies have the right to completely freely reuse permissive code, or whether they have an obligation to pay for it. That disagreement is so large that it affects our attitudes about whether offering large-scale commercial hosting of an Open Source product is moral.
And it's fine that you and I disagree on that point, but we can look at that disagreement and say that clearly your goals when licensing software are different than mine. So to me, it seems pretty reasonable that people who have this fundamental disagreement with the OSI should acknowledge that instead of acting like the Open Source movement is broken. It's not broken, it disagrees with you about the goals are in making code available to other people.
It's not people being stubborn, it's not that the OSI doesn't understand the consequences of Open Source, it's that it does understand the consequences of Open Source and it disagrees with you about what consequences are desirable. The Open Source movement doesn't need shared source advocates to 'save' us, we need them to acknowledge that their goals are different than ours.
What’s your stance on Dual licensing? I honestly have had mixed Opinions on this, but I finally settled on Dual licensing and/or BSL 1.1 as a nice compromise. I think open source developers create a lot of value, and should have the facility to be compensated and have their passion become their job. Plus this whole Re-Licensing trend toward SSPL/BSL/Dual is IMHO the natural evolution of open-source strategies.
Dual licensing (using the GPL and a separate proprietary license) is kind of a hack solution that takes advantage of the fact that business hate the GPL. It can introduce some problems (it effectively bars you from accepting contributions unless you use a CLA, which many contributors won't do). However, while community is an important part of Open Source, the most important part of Open Source is the lack of restrictions on how people use/modify/share the code, so while people can debate whether or not dual licensing is a good idea, that doesn't mean the GPL stops applying.
Any code that is GPL licensed is Open Source. It might be distasteful to some people to force contributors to sign a CLA, you might get some criticism from some segments of the community, but it's not problematic in a way that means it's fundamentally non-FOSS.
BSL on the other hand is not Open Source, but becomes Open Source at the point where the BSL license expires and is replaced by an Open version.
----
Personally, I might get some pushback on this, but I actually kind of like BSL more than dual licensing. Dual licensing relies on the fact that people find the GPL toxic. It feels much more to me like a temporary solution, and one that only works by kind of dragging the GPL through the mud. Even among people who don't hate the GPL, it encourages them to think of it as a tool to enforce 'fairness', rather than as a complicated way to use copyright to push towards a world where every user has the rights guaranteed in the GPL for every program they run.
TBH, I vaguely suspect that some of the movement towards SSPL is an evolution of people's attitude towards dual licensing, where they thought that the un-attractiveness of the GPL was the point of the GPL, and now feel like it's not living up to it's 'promise'. The fact that Amazon is able to use GPL code to provide commercial services is seen by those people as a bug, not a feature.
Many of the downsides and restrictions around community contributions with BSL are also present in dual licensing because of the implicit CLA requirements in dual licensed projects. So it's not clear to me that BSL is more harmful to community-built software than dual licensing, and given the above trend, it seems a bit more honest (for lack of a better word).
Because dual licensing doesn't really affect companies like Amazon, it kind of encourages people into these arm races where people say that the GPL has failed in its job because some companies don't hate it (again, the point of the GPL is not to be impossible for companies to use). BSL on the other hand is very straightforward, and because it's upfront about its goals, it's not subject to the same kinds of weird arm races and escalations. You release software as proprietary, we all recognize that it's proprietary and that you want compensation for it, and then at some point it becomes Open Source. That's a really simple model to think about and build around.
----
But all that being said, code that is licensed under the GPL is Open Source, period, regardless of what other licenses it is simultaneously offered under.
BSL licensed code before it expires is not Open Source or FOSS: it's proprietary code that later is Open Sourced once a certain amount of commercial value has been extracted from it.
What's the immoral end? That more people are taking advantage of the technology offered in Elasticsearch? To me that seems like a moral and intentional end.
Or is the problem that Elastic can't effectively monopolize that technology which they purposely offered to the world for free? Well, of course not... how can both of those be true at the same time? The choice to release a product as open source is to intentionally prevent it from being monopolized.
I fully support their right to change their licensing, and I understand they may not have thought through the implications of their license -- and I empathize with that. I also empathize with criticism that Amazon isn't doing a great job of supporting the ecosystem that supports them, it would be nice if they did more. And it goes without saying, but I also strongly empathize with the frustration about the borderline trademark infringement that's happening here. That's a completely separate problem.
But I don't like the implication that Open Source licenses are a legal technicality rather than a specific philosophical choice to allow reuse. People don't need to feel guilty about following Open Source licenses, the idea is to encourage reuse -- even by corporations.
We do harm to that movement when we try and backtrack from that philosophy or say, "sure, you have the legal right to reuse the code, but we're going to try and implement social/technical barriers to you doing so." There are plenty of decent source-available licenses projects can use if that's their intent. They carve out exceptions for small-scale reuse while trying to limit companies like Amazon from capitalizing on the ecosystem. And maybe more projects should use those licenses since they more accurately reflect the outcomes that the authors seem to want. There's nothing wrong with having projects that allow only small-scale reuse.
But if someone releases their project as Open Source I'm going to treat it like Open Source, because that's what the movement is about, and trying to reverse the legal progress we've made by constructing new moral barriers in front of reuse is harmful to that movement. When we say that people have a moral right to reuse, adapt, and share our code, we mean it.